Posted on 08/27/2024 10:09:22 AM PDT by nickcarraway
As Jean Jacques celebrated her 96th birthday in July, she never considered that just one month later, she would be advocating for the roof over her head.
Jacques has called Pacific Grove Senior Living her home for 22 years. On Aug. 16, the facility gave Jacques a three-day eviction notice. The notice states that Jacques must pay her outstanding balance of about $110,000 or vacate her unit.
Advertisement The issue? It was Jacques' understanding that she would be taken care of for life — regardless of whether she outlived her savings.
The eviction notice was issued by Pacifica Senior Living, the parent company for Pacific Grove Senior Living. When Pacifica acquired the facility from California-Nevada Methodist Homes in 2022, there was an expectation that existing contracts would be honored.
Though the previous owner's contracts were grandfathered in, their policies were not.
President of Pacific Grove Senior Living's Residents' Association, Bob Sadler, says that contracts for "lifetime care" like the one Jacques signed were considered unconditional under the previous owners.
Because some residents pass away before their contract finishes, evictions were not issued to those who outlived their savings, per Sadler. With this in mind, Jacques says the eviction notice came as a surprise.
Recommended Mariah Carey's mother and sister died on the same day. The singer says her 'heart is broken' The wording of the notice itself has come into question as well.
Elizabeth Campos, ombudsman project manager at the Alliance for Aging, says the notice was not approved by Community Care Licensing. Additionally, the notice did not include instructions on how to appeal.
"You do get angry knowing that it's an elderly person," Campos said. "Where is this person going to go?"
"She's devoted all of her savings and money to this place," Sadler said. "I don't care what the legal ramifications are here. This is morally unthinkable."
Jacques has not been contacted by the facility's business office since receiving the eviction notice. Attempts to contact the office by the Alliance for Aging and the Residents' Committee have received no reply. KSBW also reached out to the office without reply.
"I'm not going. They'll have to bury me because I have no place to go," Jacques said. "They have all my money."
"Recommended Mariah Carey's mother and sister died on the same day. The singer says her 'heart is broken' The wording of the notice itself has come into question as well."
I have a hard time believing a 3 day eviction notice is legal in California.
Sounds fishy to me.
I recall seeing an old B&W film in school about an Inuit/Eskimo family having a winter so rough they put grandma out on an ice floe to be eaten by polar bears - so drunk as to wave at son-in-law as he paddled away in his kayak.
Her teeth had become too worn down to soften blubber so had to go.
In California, a 3-day notice is strictly for non-payment of rent. You have 3 days from the posting of the notice to pay the back rent, but if you don’t, the landlord can file an Unlawful Detainer case against you (which is the eviction case)
I have no idea what this “lifetime care” clause in the contract is about. I’d have to see the full language in context.
= = =
When they quit ‘caring’, your life quits too.
This is scary for people who put their trust in these senior living facilities. There’s a substantial buy-in charge for these places.
Well that’s just harsh.
That’s the first step of the process.
Spotify doesn’t pay much these days.
One of the things I enjoy about you Grampa is you're usually many steps ahead of the game... Anyhow I started considering an elder lawyers a few weeks ago. Looks like a good move.
“Anyhow I started considering an elder lawyers a few weeks ago. Looks like a good move.”
Our regular lawyer is our age and has experience in protecting us older folk.
However, our new addition is a younger male lawyer. He helped us last year in a B$ situation. He had his secretary copy the BS that some bullies were using on senior citizens.
He used his stationary and told the offenders to contact his office in the future on this B$ and not to bother us anymore.
It worked.
Where is the written contract that says that? If the contract exists, then where is her signature on a document saying the policy overrides that contract?
What group of morons would allow anyone to get behind $110, 000 behind before giving a prompt notice to leave?
There are plenty of church denominations that offer “Life Care Contracts”...you give them everything you own (house and all savings except for one vehicle and like $5K in “spending money” (contracts vary).
https://www.humangood.org/senior-care-planning/paying-for-senior-care
The new owner is one the hook for the original “California-Nevada Methodist Homes” “Life Care Contract”:
“...Therefore, as part of his conditional approval, Attorney General Bonta has imposed specific conditions for the sale which would require Pacifica to, among other things...”
...”Honor residents’ contracts; and
Ensure that outstanding entrance fee obligations to current residents are paid.”
Usually the person basically gives them everything they own practically, and then the facility gets their pensions and social security less a small amount of spending money, usually $40-$50 with the provision that they get care for life.
Since most die early, the facility usually comes out ahead. Some live a little longer and it eats a little into the profit. This lady just won’t die fast enough so they are trying to kick her out.
The $110,000 is the amount they consider “owed” cause she didn’t die fast enough. They already got all her money and assets when she moved in. I know how these things work, my grandmother was in one.
You surrender your assets and they get your pension and social security and you get care for life. They let you have $40-$50 in spending money. I am sure the $110,000 is in their debit column cause she outlived the usual 3.5 years. They are keeping a running account to justice this abortion of service that was payed for.
Since they bought out, some say the other went bankrupt, they are trying to get rid of her as she is not a liability and not an asset. You’ll get old or infirm one day if you live long enough and then you will see how these buzzards operate.
that’s NOW a liability
This seems to fit in well with the part of an essay about Obamacare I wrote. In one unfriendly site I posted it to the responses indicated I was fascist, baby killing, Imbicile. I do enjoy it when I can irritate people. They even have a name for it now, micro-aggression.
“Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer presented in the New York Times Congressional intent without equivocation. “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse….There’s no doubt that it’s tough – politically, emotionally, and ethically - to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way….The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for resources they have been allocated….If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving that life gains 70 years, whereas a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will gain only 5 life-years. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds”.”
“Peter Singer’s scientific approach reminds me of the Geneva Conventions, which attempt rational, moral threads to grasp during wars’ barbarity. For my Navy experience pulverizing a major enemy base in Vietnam, I especially liked the obvious reading of Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The VC were responsible for any civilian deaths in the base we shelled. Those civilians qualified as Protected Persons within the enemy’s physical control and could not be used to render certain points and areas immune from military operations. The Convention articles are as follows:
ART. 28. — The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
ART. 29. — The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.
In another article she said in addition to the initial payment she also paid $5000 a month till her money ran out. I would also like to see the contract, but given the previous company honored the deal then you have a really interesting situation here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.